linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] two warning fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m3vecgbjix.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:38:46 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ak@...e.de,
	adaplas@...il.com, linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [git patches] two warning fixes

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> So let's make a new rule:
>
>   We absolutely NEVER add things like "must_check" unless not checking 
>   causes a real and obvious SECURITY ISSUE.

Oh, come on, almost every kernel bug is a potential security issue.

IMHO, if the function can only fail due to a kernel bug, it should
return void and, in case of bug, explode with BUG_ON() or something
like that. Sure, must_check doesn't apply too well to void.

But, if I have functions which can fail for legitimate (not kernel
bug) reasons, and I know ignoring their return values would always
be a bug, then must_check seems an obvious best and simple defense
against that.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/